Keywords: preprints, repositories, transaction cost economics, persistent identifiers, DOI versioning, withdrawal policy, scholarly infrastructure ReferencesarXiv. (n.d.-a). Understanding arXiv assigned DOIs. Retrieved February 2, 2026, from https://info.arxiv.org/help/doi.htmlarXiv. (n.d.-b). Withdrawals. Retrieved February 2, 2026, from https://info.arxiv.org/help/withdraw.htmlCrossref. (2020, April 8). Changing or deleting DOIs. https://www.crossref.org/documentation/register-maintain-records/creating-and-managing-dois/changing-or-deleting-dois/Elsevier Support (SSRN). (2021, December 22). What is a DOI and how does it help my research? https://www.elsevier.support/ssrn/answer/what-is-a-doi-and-how-does-it-help-my-researchElsevier Support (SSRN). (2024, November 13). SSRN retraction and removal policy. https://www.elsevier.support/ssrn/answer/ssrn-retraction-and-removal-policyElsevier Support (SSRN). (2025, October 20). How long does SSRN’s review process take? https://www.elsevier.support/ssrn/answer/how-long-does-ssrns-review-process-takeFoucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969)Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1975)Kennefick, D. (2005, September). Einstein versus the Physical Review. Physics Today, 58(9), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2117822MPRA. (n.d.-a). About the repository. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Retrieved February 2, 2026, from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/information.htmlMPRA. (n.d.-b). How to ask for removal of a paper. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Retrieved February 2, 2026, from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/help/removal.htmlNowak, K., Ioannidis, A., Bigarella, C., & Nielsen, L. H. (2018). DOI versioning done right (Version v1) [Poster]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1256592OpenAIRE. (2025, December 22). Zenodo introduces a new way to manage and correct published records. https://www.openaire.eu/zenodo-introduces-a-new-way-to-manage-and-correct-published-recordsRePEc. (n.d.). Corrections. Retrieved February 2, 2026, from https://ideas.repec.org/corrections.htmlWilliamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261.Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press.Zenodo. (n.d.-a). Manage records. Retrieved February 2, 2026, from https://help.zenodo.org/docs/deposit/manage-records/Zenodo. (n.d.-b). Policies. Retrieved February 2, 2026, from https://about.zenodo.org/policies/

Research archives are often treated as neutral containers for scholarly outputs. This paper instead models them as governance structures for a disclosure transaction: authors exchange early public availability (timestamping, discoverability, attribution) for exposure to hazards (misappropriation, reputational downside, legal risk, and loss of control over pre-public circulation). The empirical object is release architecture—the institutional pathway from submission to public posting, correction, and record persistence—compared across four major repositories: the Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), Zenodo, arXiv, and SSRN. The paper develops a parsimonious, codable feature model consisting of selective disclosure (SD), rejection potential (RP), latency to public posting (L), withdrawal hardness (WH), and identifier regime (IR). A transaction cost economics (TCE) lens interprets these features as safeguards allocating costs ex ante versus ex post, while a complementary Foucauldian lens interprets the same mechanisms as techniques of visibility and epistemic ordering (classification, moderation, permanence, and identifiability). Using policy texts, platform metadata, and audits of withdrawn records, the paper proposes testable expectations linking release architecture to observed outcomes: latency distributions (including tail latency), author sorting, metadata completeness, withdrawal incidence, and cross-platform linkage quality. Special attention is given to persistent identifier semantics—particularly Zenodo’s concept DOI and version DOI structure—as a coordination layer connecting local disclosure to the global scholarly record.

This paper develops a positive, comparative framework for “release architecture” in research archives—treating platforms as governance structures for disclosure. Using transaction cost economics and a complementary visibility/discipline lens, it codes MPRA, Zenodo, arXiv, and SSRN on five institutional variables (selective disclosure, rejection potential, posting latency, withdrawal hardness, and identifier regime) and outlines a measurement strategy linking these features to observable outcomes such as latency tails, withdrawal modalities, metadata completeness, and cross-platform linkage quality.